Protect our courts from big-money politics

Judges play a special role in our democracy. When a case comes before a court of law, we expect judges not to play favorites, or cater to constituencies, but to be fair, impartial umpires.

For much of our history, we've been blessed with courts that are accountable to the law and not to special interests.

Unfortunately, Alabama is leading a national trend which threatens to change that.

Since the early 1990s, when tort-reform laws were being weighed by state appeals courts, judicial elections have stopped being quiet affairs in Alabama. Today, they are marked by big money, buzz-saw rhetoric and televised attack ads. The trend has been echoed in other states that elect judges. From 2000 to 2004, the amount of money spent nationally on TV ads in state Supreme Court elections shot up from $10.6 million to $24.4 million. The rise in money spent on judicial elections has brought a drop in public trust.

It is time for Alabama to lead the way back from this destructive path. It is important that all Alabamians, not just lawyers, understand why we must pick judges based on merit, not politics.

The Alabama State Bar is seeking to end partisan elections for Supreme Court and appellate judges, and instead use a merit-based appointment process. As I become president of the American Bar Association in 2008, I will work to make merit-based appointments the national norm.

The Alabama State Bar proposal focuses on ability, and impartiality, in identifying candidates for our Supreme Court and appellate courts. A nine-member Judicial Nominating Commission would identify top candidates for each opening, and the governor would make selections from that list.

Once appointed, judges would face periodic nonpartisan "retention" elections, in which voters would decide whether to keep them. Experience shows that such elections attract considerably less money and are substantially milder in tone, than partisan, two-candidate elections.

Nationally, merit selection is endorsed by the American Bar Association. It is used for all judges in 15 states, and for some judges in 18 others. At the other end, 13 use nonpartisan elections, and only eight states use partisan elections to elect Supreme Court judges.

Some will ask what's wrong with electing judges. Why should they be different from lawmakers and governors?

The simplest answer is that judges are different. Legislators make laws, and voters should know what laws they intend to enact. Judges apply existing law to the facts of each case. They make hard decisions, and they must be neutral.

In reality, court rulings often affect large, powerful interests -- both plaintiff and defendant -- that are more than willing to underwrite runaway campaign costs.

In Alabama, business interests and plaintiff trial lawyers have led the way in pouring unprecedented amounts of money into state judicial elections.

Candidates in the state's 2006 Supreme Court races raised a total of $7.3 million, making it the most expensive such races in the country. That is, frankly, an obscene amount of money.

According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 63 percent of people surveyed believe pressure from campaign donors would affect a judge's impartiality to a great or moderate extent. That is a dangerous erosion in public trust.

Our justice system should belong to all of us, not to an inner circle of special interests. By taking our appellate judges and Supreme Court justices out of the partisan political process, we preserve confidence in our courts.

H. Thomas Wells Jr., a lawyer in the Birmingham office of Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, is president-elect of the American Bar Association.